UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 98-1053

HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES OF

WEST VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, d/b/a

Williamson Memorial Hospital,

Respondent.

HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES OF

WEST VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, d/b/a

Williamson Memorial Hospital,

Petitioner,

No. 98-1106

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent.

On Application for Enforcement and Cross-Petition

for Review of an Order of the

National Labor Relations Board.

(9-CA-35293)

Argued: January 28, 1999

Decided: March 11, 1999

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and

GOODWIN, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________
Enforcement granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Alex V. Barbour, BATES, MECKLER, BULGER &

TILSON, Chicago, Illinois, for Health Management. Fred B. Jacob,

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for

Board. ON BRIEF: Brian W. Bulger, Grett G. Rawitz, BATES,

MECKLER, BULGER & TILSON, Chicago, Illinois, for Health

Management. Frederick L. Feinstein, Acting General Counsel, Linda

Sher, Associate General Counsel, John D. Burgoyne, Acting Deputy

Associate General Counsel, Fred L. Cornnell, Supervisory Attorney,

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for

Board.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) petitions for

enforcement of a Board order finding that Health Management Associates of West Virginia, Inc., d/b/a Williamson Memorial Hospital

(the Hospital) committed unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain

with the United Mine Workers of America (the Union). The Hospital

cross-petitions for review of that order. The petition for enforcement

is granted.

I.

The Hospital is an acute care facility with two off-site clinics. The

current dispute began when the Hospital refused to agree to a union

representation election for a proposed bargaining unit consisting of

 2
nonprofessional employees but not including business office clerical

employees (BOCs). Following a hearing to determine the appropriate

bargaining unit, the Regional Director concluded that the Hospital had

failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that would preclude application of the general Board rule that BOCs may constitute

a separate bargaining unit in acute care hospitals. See 29 C.F.R.

§ 103.30(a) (1998). The Regional Director therefore ordered an election among the employees of the proposed bargaining unit, and the

Board denied the Hospital's request for review of the Regional Director's decision. In the subsequent representation election, unit employees voted in favor of union representation. The Regional Director

therefore certified the Union as the unit employees' collectivebargaining representative.

When the Hospital refused the Union's request to bargain, the

Union filed a charge with the Board alleging violations of the

National Labor Relations Act. See 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1), (5) (West

1998). The Board's General Counsel issued a complaint based on that

charge. In its answer, the Hospital admitted that it had refused to bargain but contested the appropriateness of the Board's unit determination. The General Counsel then transferred the proceedings to the

Board, which granted summary judgment against the Hospital. The

Board's order requires the Hospital, inter alia , to cease and desist

refusing to bargain with the Union.

II.

The Hospital argues that the Board abused its discretion in certifying the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit

described. We disagree.

The Board enjoys "the widest possible discretion" in selecting

appropriate bargaining units. Arcadian Shores, Inc. v. NLRB, 580

F.2d 118, 119 (4th Cir. 1978). Here, we conclude that the Board was

well within its discretion in determining that the Hospital failed to

establish extraordinary circumstances that would have justified a

departure from the general rule. Accordingly, we grant enforcement

of the Board's order.

ENFORCEMENT GRANTED

 3